Jones v. Espinoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Espinoza

66 A.D.3d 1024, 886 N.Y.S.2d 821

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.3d 1024 (Jones v. Espinoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Espinoza, 66 A.D.3d 1024, 886 N.Y.S.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), dated March 5, 2008, as denied her objections to so much of an order of the same court (Rodriguez, S.M.), dated October 2, 2007, as, after a hearing, denied her petition for reimbursement of medical expenses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The mother had the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence to show that the father had failed to reimburse her for their daughter’s necessary medical expenses for which she had given the father 48 hours advance notice (see Matter of Paccione v Paccione, 57 AD3d 900, 902 [2008]; Matter of Biancanello v Russano, 54 AD3d 853, 854 [2008]; Miller v Miller, 18 AD3d 629, 630 [2005]). However, the mother failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the expenses were a medical necessity which fell within the purview of the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Moreover, the evidence established that the mother did not provide the father with the required notice before incurring the expenses. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), dated March 5, 2008, as denied her objections to so much of an order of the same court (Rodriguez, S.M.), dated October 2, 2007, as, after a hearing, denied her petition for reimbursement of medical expenses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The mother had the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence to show that the father had failed to reimburse her for their daughter’s necessary medical expenses for which she had given the father 48 hours advance notice (see Matter of Paccione v Paccione, 57 AD3d 900, 902 [2008]; Matter of Biancanello v Russano, 54 AD3d 853, 854 [2008]; Miller v Miller, 18 AD3d 629, 630 [2005]). However, the mother failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the expenses were a medical necessity which fell within the purview of the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Moreover, the evidence established that the mother did not provide the father with the required notice before incurring the expenses. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.3d 1024, 886 N.Y.S.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-espinoza-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack